Global Networks 12, 3 (2012) 333–354. ISSN 1470–2266. © 2011 The Author(s) Journal compilation © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd & Global Networks Partnership 333

Governing the transnational organic

cotton network from Benin

LAURENT C. GLIN,* ARTHUR P. J. MOL,† PETER OOSTERVEER‡ AND SIMPLICE D. VODOUHʧ

Environmental Policy Group, Department of Social Sciences, Wageningnen University, PO Box 8130, 6700 EW, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

*(corresponding author) laurent.glin@wur.nl, glinlaurent@gmail.com †arthur.mol@wur.nl

‡peter.oosterveer@wur.nl §Faculté des Sciences Agronomiques, Université d’Abomey-Calavi,

01 BP 526, Cotonou, Benin. dsvodouhe@yahoo.com

Abstract In this article, we attempt to conceptualize the historical development and the governance structure of the transnational organic cotton network from Benin. We aim to discover how the organic cotton production–consumption network is governed locally and internationally. Existing bodies of literature on international agricultural production networks, in particular the Global Value Chains (GVC) perspective, focus on economic dimensions, but find it difficult to incorporate the sustainability dimension. We favour widening the concept of GVCs beyond economics by acknowledging and including environmental rationalities and the representatives of their interests, not as external elements, but rather as co-governing or co-structuring factors (or actors) of sustainable value chains. Our findings reveal that beyond the traditional producer versus buyer dualism, intermediate stakeholders, namely transnational and local environmental NGO networks, are instrumental in the construction, maintenance and transformation of the organic cotton network. It is also apparent that farmers’ leaders play an important role in mediating and (re)building trust among organic farmers, though they exert insufficient vertical power in the organic cotton network to control it.

Keywords ORGANIC COTTON, GLOBAL VALUE CHAIN (GVC), TRANSNATIONAL NETWORKS GOVERNANCE, TRUST, BENIN

In recent decades modern agriculture has engendered significant externalities, affecting natural capital and human health, as well as the production base of agriculture per se (Pretty and Hine 2001). As Mol and Bulkeley (2002) suggest,

Laurent C. Glin, Arthur P. J. Mol, Peter Oosterveer and Simplice D. Vodouhê

334 © 2011 The Author(s)

pesticides and fertilizers, large-scale livestock farming, and the use of various additives by food-processing industries are some of the major risks involved in contemporary food provision. For the last 20 years, structural adjustment and neo-liberal policies have encouraged agricultural intensification as a strategy to achieve food security and poverty alleviation in West Africa. This, among other things, has created a lot of health and environmental problems (Glin et al. 2006; Vodouhê et al. 2001). In reaction, an organic agriculture movement has emerged that ‘focuses on re-embedding crop and livestock production in ecological processes, encouraging trade in agricultural commodities produced under certified organic conditions and processed goods derived from these commodities’ (Raynolds 2000: 297, 299). Advocates claim that organic agriculture is an alternative that can improve agri-cultural sustainability and farmers’ livelihoods while not harming the environment (Ton 2007; Tovignan 2005). One example of this emerging organic agriculture in West Africa is the organic cotton initiative in Benin. This endeavour originated from initiatives taken after the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio in 1992. Benin’s organic cotton sector is currently undergoing a progressive transformation from an experimental, small-scale and donor-dependent initiative towards a market-oriented, large-scale and self-financing transnational commodity network. One of the striking characteristics of this network is the crucial role that local and international NGOs play. At the same time, globalization processes dominated by the North shape and facilitate this transnational organic cotton network.

However, despite the growing importance of organic agriculture in West Africa, policy makers and public research institutes have not shown much interest in this sector, and it has to date received little academic analysis. In addition, the question arises of whether the ‘conventional’ approaches in international food chain research that Friedmann (1993), Gereffi (1994) and others developed initially are adequate for understanding developments and governance in international organic commodity networks.

Hence, in this article we investigate how the Benin-related organic cotton production–consumption network emerged, how it was governed – locally and inter-nationally – and whether the Global Commodity (Value) Chain perspective needs to be reconsidered or widened for a relevant account of the sustainability dimension of international food network governance. For this purpose, we conducted qualitative research combining both structural and actor-centred methods. During the first stage, we investigated the historical development of the organic cotton network in Benin and its overall institutional framework. Starting with OBEPAB (Organisation Béninoise pour la Promotion de l’Agriculture Biologique) – the national NGO leading organic cotton production in Benin, we gradually identified the other relevant actors involved in the organic cotton network from local to supra-national levels, including organic farmers’ organizations, input suppliers, services providers (transporters, ginning companies), a certification body (Ecocert International) and several transnational NGOs. We conducted open and semi-structured interviews with leaders of these stakeholders on the following topics – the genesis of the organic cotton initiative in Benin; historic events and constellations that affected the development of the organic

Governing the transnational organic cotton network from Benin

© 2011 The Author(s) 335

cotton network; the processes and actors involved; and coaching, innovation and learning processes in the maturation of organic cotton networks.

In the second phase, we analysed the social dynamics that connect actors and practices within the organic cotton network, particularly flows of information and knowledge, trust building mechanisms, and power relations among actors from pro-duction level to global market level. We also attended international events, especially the 2008 Organic Exchange’s Global Conference in Portugal, and interacted with stakeholders from the global organic fibre supply chain, including retailers, farmers, manufacturers, representatives of brands, banks, NGOs, certifiers and cotton brokers.

This article is organized as follows. First, we outline the GVC concept and relate it to governance frames in designing an analytical perspective. Second, a brief overview of the cotton sector in Benin provides the background against which we reconstitute the historical development of the organic cotton initiative in Benin. The aim here is not to compare conventional and organic cotton value chains, but to provide the necessary reference to understanding the context of emergence and the dynamics within the organic cotton network. In the subsequent section, we address the governance structure of the organic cotton network, highlighting the steering role that transnational networks play. The article concludes by indicating the implications of these findings from both theoretical and practical perspectives.

Governing global commodity networks

The Global Commodity (or Value) Chain concept (GCC/GVC) is one of the most per-vasive perspectives for thinking about the links between the production, distribution and consumption of goods, especially in the field of agricultural commodities (Friedmann 1993; Gereffi 1994). Building on general political economy thinking and World System frames, this approach aims to demonstrate what developments have led to the globalization of agro-production chains and how their internal dynamics can be explained (Busch and Juska 1997). Political economy approaches account for the transformation and industrialization of capitalist agriculture, the rising power of multinational food and agribusiness corporations and the global integration of the agro-food system (Ward and Almas 1997). These approaches analyse linear chains or networks whereby commodities are produced in ‘peripherial’ regions of the global economy for retail and consumption in the ‘core’ (Barrett et al. 2004; Hughes 2006), accompanying an unequal distribution of benefits. The different political economy approaches have been criticized for being overly structuralist and dismissive of social agency and the interests of various actors (Challies 2008: 378). According to Busch and Juska (1997), political economy perspectives obscure the interactions among a wide variety of political, economic, social, cultural, technological and natural phe-nomena that extend across localities, regions and nations and that together define globalization.

Against the background of these critics, GCC and GVC perspectives evolved in an attempt to reconceptualize and re-examine the different ways in which global

Laurent C. Glin, Arthur P. J. Mol, Peter Oosterveer and Simplice D. Vodouhê

336 © 2011 The Author(s)

production and distribution (and later consumption) systems are integrated, how these are governed and what the possibilities are for firms in developing countries to enhance their position in global markets (Gereffi et al. 2005). To some extent, GVC approaches include a concern for the organizational and governance configuration of the chain, while maintaining an overall focus on the unequal exchange of (economic) value between the different segments/firms involved in the chain. However, do GVC perspectives provide enough conceptual room to analyse the governance of organic value chains? We will selectively review the GVC literature to address this question.

In the GVC research tradition, understanding governance has generally focused on coordination mechanisms and power relations among economic actors. Governance seen through this lens ‘relates closely to the notion of “drivenness”, that is, how, and how much, firms in certain positions in a chain are able to control and steer its functioning to their own benefit, which includes shaping the division of labour and distribution of rewards along the chain’ (Bernstein and Campling 2006: 245). In analysing governance in GVCs, Gereffi (1994) initially stressed issues of authority and power relationships and distinguished two ideal types, namely producer-driven and buyer-driven chains. Producer-driven chains are characterized by the concen-tration of capital and technological know-how allowing producers to dominate the industry (for example automobiles), while buyer-driven chains are those that distributors and retailers dominate via their control of the branding, design and market functions (for example garments). The nature of the lead firm and the location of key barriers to entry is the basis of that analysis (Gibbon and Ponte 2005). Although such a conceptualization of governance in commodity studies has proved insightful, especially when wider socio-political and cultural contexts are drawn into the analysis, the simple dichotomy of producer- versus buyer-driven chains has been frequently challenged, especially following empirical research. Gereffi himself conceded that the dichotomy does not adequately explain some of the characteristics of certain contemporary value chains (Gibbon and Ponte 2005). In an effort to refine the typology of governance in GVCs, Gereffi et al. (2005) proposed five types of governance structures, combining three variables. These were (1) the complexity of transactions, (2) the ability to codify information in transactions (through standards, certifications), and (3) the capabilities of the suppliers to fulfil transaction requirements. The five types of GVC governance thus generated are hierarchy, captive, relational, modular, and market, which range from high to low levels of explicit coordination and power asymmetry (Gereffi et al. 2005: 78). This new governance typology is still rooted in inter-firm links and strongly in-between hierarchy and markets. It delegates non-economic influences to the context and provides almost monopolistic roles for economic agents and rationales in governing value chains. Such a conceptualization of governance might overlook how, in particular, the ethics, ideology, identity, symbolic and environmental values of such chains may condition stakeholders’ participation and determine forms of alignment and coordination within commodity networks. Such quality and environmental standards can be expected to be particularly relevant as far as ‘organics’ are

Governing the transnational organic cotton network from Benin

© 2011 The Author(s) 337

concerned and may affect the governing structure of organic value chains by rebalancing or diverting sources of power from the economic realm towards, for instance, the environmental one. Murdoch (2000) has been one of the few to argue that GVC approaches indeed have to go beyond their traditional emphasis on the directly involved economic actors by including the roles of external factors such as transnational and national NGOs. What does it mean to bring non-economic actors and interests into the organic value chain analysis?

Many commodity studies emphasize the political and contested nature of quality issues, as well as the mechanisms of its mediation through standard setting and certification procedures, which actors in the dominant chain use as a tool through which to exert their power. They pay less attention to the role of consumers, civil society and social movements in shaping and coordinating more environmentally friendly supply chains. In fact, when studying the role of civil society and social movements in commodity chain governance, the focus has often been on one of three other factors. These are standard setting and implementation (Bartley 2003; Klooster 2005; Oosterveer 2006); how civil society organizations try to influence transnational trading relationships via forms of protest and resistance (Crewe 2004; Freidberg 2004); or how environmental activists use commodity chain analyses to carry out their campaigns (Bair 2009). Very few studies address the roles of transnational civil society networks in constructing and transforming commodity networks per se. Even studies on the importance and codification of trust in value chains (see Sturgeon 2002) remain focused on trust between economic actors within the supply chain, and the role of standards and certifications in codifying such trust and reputation. However, non-economic agents, especially environmental NGOs, play a strong part in mediating trust in organic markets, so we cannot place them outside the value chain. Hence, although we can witness GVC studies and frames paying growing attention to the emerging importance of environmental values and activists, the authors of these studies place them outside their conceptual frames and view them in their politics as external environmental claims on value chains and as external users of global chain analytical frames. They do not interpret or conceptualize environmental rationalities and those who represent their interests as co-governing or co-structuring the GVCs’ factors or actors.

Raynolds (2004: 728) suggests that governance should be ‘understood not as a pre-existing structural feature of commodity chains, but as the relations through which key actors create, maintain, and potentially transform network activities’. To open the value chain concept to governance, we draw on the governance literature in political science and international relations. Here the conventional idea of state governance and authority has been widened over the past two decades, making conceptual room to understand the emergence of multiple authorities and governance actors, for instance in global environmental politics (Mol 2010; Treib et al. 2007). Kern (2004) has made a useful classification by identifying three types of trans-national governance – (1) international and intergovernmental cooperation; (2) global policy networks; and (3) transnational network organizations (see Table 1). Although not intended for commodity chain analyses, Kern’s conceptualization of transnational

Laurent C. Glin, Arthur P. J. Mol, Peter Oosterveer and Simplice D. Vodouhê

338 © 2011 The Author(s)

network organizations is useful in that it widens the value chain perspective. It is of particular interest to our analysis of transnational organic cotton networks because it (1) opens commodity chain governance beyond the continuum between hierarchy and markets, and (2) enables the inclusion of non-economic governance actors and perspectives. This creates a conceptual space in which to interpret transnational civil society networks and to see them as (co-)constitutive forms of governance in creating and structuring commodity networks. As we elaborate and illustrate below, it is impossible to understand the emergence and governance of the international organic cotton networks from Benin without a wider perspective of civil-society-based transnational network organizations.

Table 1: Forms of transnational governance

Type of institutionalization Definition and implementation of standards

International and intergovernmental cooperation

Without self-organization Through nation-states

Global policy network With self-organization With nation-states

Transnational network organizations Through self-organization Without nation-states

Source: following Kern 2004.

If such a much more inclusive perspective on commodity chain governance helps our understanding of Benin-based organic cotton chains, then we need to ask the following question. Should it be understood in relation to (1) the specific character of the chain (organics); (2) the more general inclusion of environmental concerns in commodity chains following the global surge of sustainability; or (3) the relatively recent emergence of organic cotton chains? We shall address this question further in the conclusion.

The cotton sector in Benin

Cotton is Benin’s main export crop. Cotton production and processing is enormously important to both national and household economies. An estimated two-thirds of the population depends on cotton for its livelihood. Cotton accounts for between 50 and 70 per cent of export revenues in Benin (Ton 2002). Benin’s annual cotton production varies from 250,000 tonnes to 400,000 tonnes and it exports more than 95 per cent of its cotton fibre, which has a good reputation on the international markets. The textile industry (spinning, knitting/weaving, colouring, confection) is limited to only a few industries, namely COTEB, CBT and SITEX.

For nearly two decades, the parastatal company SONAPRA (Société Nationale pour la Promotion Agricole) governed Benin’s cotton sector. It took care of most of the industry’s commercial side, including buying and distributing seeds and chemical

Governing the transnational organic cotton network from Benin

© 2011 The Author(s) 339

inputs, directly purchasing cotton from farmers, determining the price, ginning and exporting the cotton lint (Gergely 2009; Kutting 2004). The rural development agencies (CARDERs) provided the extension services. Then, in the early 1990s, with the introduction of structural adjustment programmes and attempts to improve the competitive position of the cotton sector (Sinzogan 2006), the industry was liberalized and the direct participation of state agencies withdrawn from its economic activities. Consequently, progressive privatization of input distribution, transport and ginning took place under a government licensing system. A new category of actors emerged including farmers’ organizations, from village to national level. The AIC (Association Interprofessionnelle du Coton), a multi-stakeholder organization consisting of producers’ representatives, inputs suppliers and ginners, now assumes responsibility for coordinating the sector. CAGIA (Coopérative d’Approvisionnement et de Gestion des Intrants Agricoles) is in charge of granting input supply licences to input providers; and CSPR (Centrale de Sécurisation de Payement et de Recouvrement) is the clearing house for all financial transactions in the sector.

Following a series of crises in the new organizational framework, and convinced of the need to pursue the privatization process, especially with respect to the ginning link, two new arrangements were set up in 2008. These consisted of a public–private joint venture, SODECO (Société pour le Développement du Coton), which took over the industrial component of SONAPRA, and the CAIA (Centrale d’Achat des Intrants Agricoles), which took charge of coordinating and managing the inputs provision sub-sector. Currently, a new reform is underway to tackle the ‘caution solidaire’ issue, which is one of the major bottlenecks of the cotton industry. The caution solidaire is the collective repayment obligation that gives responsibility to farmer-based organizations to secure inputs and financial credits provided to farmers and guarantee their reimbursement. Unfortunately, indebtedness and bad management created a crisis of confidence among cotton producers and an increasing number are abandoning the crop (Sinzogan 2006: 46). The new reform aims to overcome this problem with its special focus on restructuring farmers’ organizations and the repayment mechanism.

Over the last few years, the crisis in the reform, combined with global cotton market trends, has caused a sharp decline in cotton production in Benin, which has now fallen to less than 200,000 tons (Gergely 2009). However, cotton still contributes significantly to the national economy although cotton industry inflicts much damage on the environment and degrades the natural production process (Glin et al. 2006; Tovignan 2005). Indeed, conventional cotton production relies on intensive synthetic inputs, which damage ecosystems, as well as human and animal health. Between 1993 and 2003, cotton production in Benin accounted for an annual average of two million litres of chemical pesticides (Glin et al. 2006). In addition, economic liberalization exposes producer countries and farmers to unstable world market prices, which have been fluctuating for decades but overall show a declining trend. This situation raised awareness among farmers and national development institutions of the seriousness of the problems related to growing conventional cotton and created a favourable context in which to search for alternatives.

Laurent C. Glin, Arthur P. J. Mol, Peter Oosterveer and Simplice D. Vodouhê

340 © 2011 The Author(s)

The rise of organic cotton production in Benin: from international regimes to transnational network governance

Our aim in this section is to highlight how one might find the constitutive basis for the emergence of an international organic cotton network from Benin at the intersection of intergovernmental cooperation and transnational environmental movements.

As stated above, the context of increased awareness about the problems in con-ventional cotton created a favourable situation for alternatives to the conventional farming system. This favourable context came together with international developments. Since the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, significant changes have taken place in discourses, policies, institutions and practices, targeting environmental issues at both international and national levels. In 1994, the governments of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Benin Republic signed a bilateral Sustainable Development Agreement (SDA). As Verhagen et al. (2003: 28) stated, the SDA ‘was about finding a new way for countries to tackle their common problems of unsustainable development’. The agreement provided the legal and institutional framework for the development and implementation of policies, arrangements, programmes and projects aiming to promote effectively every aspect of sustainable development, including ecological, economic, and social ones (UN 1998). Even though the SDA claims to uphold the principles of reciprocity, equality and participation, no private and civil society stakeholders were involved in the negotiation and the execution of the agreement. National agencies – Centre Béninois pour le Développement Durable (CBDD) in Benin and the Royal Tropical Institute/Netherlands Partnership for Sustainability KIT/NIPS in the Netherlands – executed the agreement. This form of governance corresponds with Kern’s definition of governance through international cooperation (Kern 2004; Table 1).

The SDA identified the possibility of setting up a sustainable Benin–Netherlands textile chain and organic cotton appeared to be a viable opportunity in this respect. Since the early 1990s, a coalition of Dutch NGOs (united in the Schone Kleren Overleg, Clean Clothes Platform) questioned clothing shops in the Netherlands about their social responsibilities and the need to switch to organic cotton (NIPS 2004). Timmermans Confectie Wijchen (TCW), a company located in the Netherlands, identified itself as a supplier of products such as baby clothes, bed linen and curtains made from organic cotton. In Benin, as mentioned above, the conventional cotton system was increasingly associated with environmental and health deterioration as well as with the deterioration of socio-economic conditions for smallholder farmers. Against this background, organic cotton production began in Benin in 1996. The newly created national NGO OBEPAB became the local agency for implementing a ‘sustainable cotton supply chain’. During a delay in the SDA’s financial mechanism, the organic cotton initiative benefited from financial support from the Pesticides Trust (currently Pesticides Action Network (PAN)–UK) during the pilot phase from 1996 to 1998. As an environmental movement, PAN is committed to pesticide reduction and to promoting organic agriculture (Myers 1999). From 1998 to 2004, the SDA supported the organic cotton initiative. An organic agricultural consultancy, Agro Eco, a transnational NGO also responsible for awareness

Governing the transnational organic cotton network from Benin

© 2011 The Author(s) 341

raising and marketing initiatives in the North, provided technical support. Thus, a ‘kind of global policy network’, including government agencies (CBDD in Benin and KIT/NIPS in the Netherlands), transnational movements (PAN–UK and Agro Eco) and a local NGO (OBEPAB), led the development of organic cotton production in its early phase. In terms of power relations, both Agro Eco and OBEPAB, which depended on state agencies for their finances, were the implementing agencies. For several reasons – namely the experimental nature and project orientation of the initiative, certification requirements, and the initial reluctance of conventional cotton stakeholders – the organic cotton network in Benin was set up and developed outside the conventional cotton institutional arrangement, even though some relations existed. This is quite different from other organic cotton initiatives in West Africa (for example Burkina-Faso and Mali), which are at least partially embedded in the conventional cotton institutional framework (Basset 2010). In addition, for traceability reasons organic farmers may not grow conventional cotton or have access to chemicals. All this makes organic cotton in Benin a distinctive commodity chain even though it negotiates or hires some services (especially access to seeds and ginning) from conventional stakeholders.

From 2004, the SDA stopped financial support to organic cotton development. Thus, the organic cotton network had to move progressively from an experimental, small-scale and donor dependent initiative toward a market-oriented, large-scale and self-financing one, where transnational as well as national networks are instrumental to the (re-) con-stitution and maintenance of the organic cotton network. The organic cotton network currently involves a range of actors and networks from local to supra-national levels, including farmers, farmers’ organizations, input providers, national NGOs, service providers (ginning, transport), certifiers and transnational NGOs. Around 2000 small-scale farmers, one-third of which are women, depend on organic cotton farming for their livelihoods in Benin. They farm two to eight hectares of land and sow organic cotton on about one-third. The organic cotton farmers live in more than 40 different villages spread out over all the major cotton-growing areas in Benin – the Dassa, Djidja, Glazoué, Kandi and Sinendé districts. They produce an annual average of 500 tonnes of certified organic seed cotton for export to the EU and USA. This production represented 0.2 per cent of Benin’s national cotton production towards the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century. Figure 1 displays the statistics of organic cotton production in Benin.

Parallel to the production network around OBEPAB, Helvetas-Benin in partnership with GIZ and the U-AVIGREF (Union des Associations Villageoises de Gestion des Réserves de Faune) started a new organic cotton project in the surrounding areas of the Pendjari biosphere reserve in North West of Benin in 2008. The rationale behind this is to protect the reserve from pesticide contamination while generating sustainable income to local communities. We do not address this case given its recent character.

Governing the transnational organic cotton network

How is this organic cotton commodity network organized and governed from local production to global markets and consumption? As mentioned above, we conceptualize a governance structure as the relations through which key actors create,

Laurent C. Glin, Arthur P. J. Mol, Peter Oosterveer and Simplice D. Vodouhê

342 © 2011 The Author(s)

Figure 1: Statistics of organic cotton production in Benin

Source: OBEPAB.

Figure 2: The transnational organic cotton network

Interrelations

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1996/7 1997/8 1998/9 1999/00 2000/1 2001/2 2002/3 2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9

Season

Num

ber o

f far

mer

s

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Pro

duct

ion

of s

eed

cotto

n (to

nnes

)

Farmers

Production

Organic cotton farmers

National NGO-

networks

Service providers

Local

partners

Transnational NGO-networks

Importers/ Processors

Donors

Retailers

•Transporters •Ginning mils •Local spinners •Local weavers •Certification body

•Local NGOs •Research institutes •AIC

Governing the transnational organic cotton network from Benin

© 2011 The Author(s) 343

maintain and potentially transform network activities. We identified two coordination structures within the organic cotton network – one around the production and processing at the national level and a second around the marketing of the organic fibres and by-products. The first coordination structure is arranged around the national NGO, OBEPAB, and the second around transnational NGO networks (Figure 2). This is in line with the argument by Dicken et al. (2001) that any view of social actors and their networks in the global economy must always be sensitive to the geographical and organizational scales at which they operate.

Production networks

At the national level, OBEPAB – a national NGO created in 1995 during the process of democratization and the emergence of civil society organizations in Benin – is at the heart of the organic cotton network. Since 1996, it has become the leading actor in organizing and implementing the organic cotton chain in Benin and it still plays a major role in organizing and coordinating the organic cotton production process. While SONAPRA formerly played the coordination role in the conventional cotton production chain, the ongoing reform attributes this responsibility to the AIC.

The motivations for producing cotton differ markedly between conventional and organic farmers. The reasons why conventional farmers grow cotton are mainly associated with the better organization of this commodity chain (compared with the others), which gives farmers access to chemical inputs (a part of which they divert to other crops), financial credits and a cash income. However, the crisis in the cotton sector seriously challenged these perceived advantages. Most of the organic cotton farmers we interviewed converted to organic production because of the lack of transparency in the conventional sector and their experiences with pesticide-related accidents and health problems. In addition, some farmers took a particular interest in organic cotton because it embodies economic and social advantages, with the attainment of stable revenues and the prevention of indebtedness being the most notable. Producing organic cotton becomes feasible when only locally available resources are used. Furthermore, to ensure producer loyalty to the organic scheme, the organic farmers generally obtain a premium for their produce in compensation for any yield loss (Dowd 2008; Ton 2007). In Benin, organic cotton farmers receive a premium of around 20 per cent over and above the price paid for conventional cotton. Other considerations for organic preferences are the allotted time for payment and the transparency and trust in the mechanism of payment. Organic farmers always express their motivation for organic cotton farming by comparing it with conventional cotton, and not in terms of their ideological commitment to organic production per se.

The social advantages of organic farming lie in the social learning that validates the farmers’ knowledge of and views about technological development. Whereas the conventional farming system relies almost entirely on the use of chemicals (pesticides and fertilizers), the organic system relates the cotton to its ecosystem and needs expertise to optimize the synergy between the two. To deal with this issue and to improve the farmers’ decision-making capacities, the organic cotton system

Laurent C. Glin, Arthur P. J. Mol, Peter Oosterveer and Simplice D. Vodouhê

344 © 2011 The Author(s)

constructs a participatory knowledge and extension approach. Moreover, from a gender perspective, organic cotton farming enables women to hold a separate cotton farm and thus increase their economic independence, whereas with the conventional system they depend mainly on the farm of the (male) head of the household (Tovignan 2005). As most of the resources needed for organic cotton farming are available locally (especially ingredients for sprays such as neem seeds and pawpaw leaves), and are risk free, women also have access to the necessary inputs. In the conventional system, women can barely afford to acquire and handle the necessary chemicals. All the female farmers we interviewed underlined this aspect as an important factor in their motivation to opt for organic farming.

Contracting organic cotton farmers: bringing trust back in

Unlike conventional cotton producers, organic cotton farmers work through a system of contracts. Every year, OBEPAB signs a contract with each individual organic farmer through his or her organization. The contract sets out the norms and technical require-ments with which organic farmers have to comply in farming organic cotton on the one hand, and OBEPAB’s obligations to guarantee technical and organizational support and to purchase the organic seed cotton at a premium price on the other. To be able to honour these obligations, OBEPAB has to market the organic cotton fibre and by-products, so farmers must supply the organization with all the cotton they harvest. The farming contracts are also a key element in the internal control system to ensure the traceability of the organic cotton and its certification. However, interviews with organic farmers revealed that their trust in OBEPAB and, subsequently, in the overall organic supply system is not based on this contract. Rather, they refer to the long-standing trade relationship they have with OBEPAB. The farmers we interviewed trusted OBEPAB and appreciated the way in which it had always fulfilled its commitment to make speedy pay-ments for the cotton, including the premium. They base their trust in the future continu-ation of the arrangement on their experiences of the past and not on the annual contract. Organic farmers often express their appreciation of OBEPAB by comparing it favourably with the conventional cotton sector, which is much slower to pay for the cotton.

However, unsuccessful marketing over the last two years saw organic farmers being paid later than conventional ones, which created distrust among many organic farmers and quite a few subsequently withdrew from organic cotton production (Figure 1). In this situation, organic farmer leaders play an important role in mediating and rebuilding trust among their peers. That the organic farmers had such a good working relationship with the leaders of the farmers’ organization partly offset the distrust that arose in the organic system through the delay in payment. These leaders act locally as an ‘extension’ of OBEPAB’s staff and play an important role in the exchange and communication of information. They are in charge of relaying the information and technical advice among organic farmers in their areas, so channel the transmission of inputs to farmers such as spraying materials and cottonseeds. These field agents also transmit the farmers’ needs to OBEPAB. They organize and supervise the cleaning of the land that serves for weighing and purchasing the organic

Governing the transnational organic cotton network from Benin

© 2011 The Author(s) 345

cotton. Farmer leaders are also an important component of the internal control system. They visit farmers, learn about their farming practices and sensitize them in cases of non-compliance. In addition, farmer leaders are the main channel through which newcomers in organic cotton production get in contact with the ‘organic message’ and become susceptible to trying it. As a consequence, many organic farmers ‘owe’ their membership in the organic cotton network to their local leaders. These leaders play important roles in forming and sustaining common values and goals in farmer networks. The success of leaders depends on their reputation and trust among their peers, as illustrated in the statement from a farmer of Sinanwongourou village, Kandi district in northern Benin:

I would have abandoned organic cotton given the delay in cash payment we are witnessing these last years. The only thing that keeps me growing organic cotton is Alidou, our leader. He is struggling for organic cotton. He always visits my farm and any information I need, I get from him. I trust him.

Despite the importance of organizing organic farmers, their groups do not yet have enough power in the organic commodity network to deal with service providers other than through OBEPAB or organic cotton buyers. The reason for this situation is twofold. First, because cotton, conventional as well as organic, is a rather complex industry that requires specific technical, management and market skills, farmers’ organizations can hardly manage by themselves, but rely instead on an intermediary organization. The second reason lies in the organic farmers’ fear that their organization might simply become yet another intermediary that functions to skim off the profits. Because of the corruption they witnessed in the conventional cotton system, most of the farmers oppose the idea of according business-like responsibilities to farmers’ organizations. Table 2 shows what goes into providing the services required to produce organic cotton. It is worth noting that, unlike the conventional cotton chain, organic cotton fibre does not have its own specific organic ginning facility. As a consequence, through a formal contract OBEPAB negotiates and pays the ginning service of SODECO under specific cleaning and handling measures to prevent risks of contamination. Afterwards, OBEPAB gets the cotton fibre and proceeds to the storage and export.

Reconfiguring existing social networks

Because of the specific approach and expertise it requires, organic farming gives rise to a reconfiguring of existing social networks. In fact, unlike the conventional cotton system, which focuses mainly on the cotton plant, growing organic cotton needs to take place within a farm system that aims to optimize the larger agro-ecosystem (van Elzakker 1999). This calls for a change in farmers’ attitudes and behaviour, as well as new knowledge and skills. The latter include the ability to identify, name and learn about the ecology and life cycles of pests and natural enemies; know about a range of plants with biopesticide effects; assess levels of organic matter and be able to recognize the various soil fertility indicators. Thus, organic farmers are engaged in a learning

Laurent C. Glin, Arthur P. J. Mol, Peter Oosterveer and Simplice D. Vodouhê

346 © 2011 The Author(s)

process through farmers’ field school sessions, farmer-led informal experiments, and other forms of training in the field. Furthermore, organic farmers often rely on each other to share resources, for instance spraying materials and carts, because of the internal control system and certification requirements to prevent contamination, and the feeling of belonging to a new ‘community of practice’.

Table 2: Service provision in organic cotton production in Benin

Service providers

Form of negotiation

Procedures/Modalities

Seed provision

AIC (Association Interprofessionnelle du Coton)

Working relationship without a formal agreement

• Free of charge; • OBEPAB sends a demand to

the permanent secretary of AIC specifying the quantity needed

Transport Private actors Formal service provision contracts agreed annually with OBEPAB and farmers’ organizations

• Contract stipulates specific conditions for handling organic cotton to avoid risk of non-compliance with the organic standard;

• Cash payment

Ginning and storage

SODECO (Société du Développement du Coton)

Formal service provision contracts agreed annually with OBEPAB

• Contract stipulates specific conditions of ginning and storing organic cotton to prevent risks of non-compliance with the organic standard;

• Cash payment

Certification Ecocert International

Formal contract agreed annually with OBEPAB

• External certification based on EU standard (CEE 2092/91), and occasionally on the United States (NOP) and Japan (JAS) depending on demand from the buyer

Organic farming also reconfigures gender relations within and across households

by reducing the dependence of women on men in accessing and handling external inputs. As Basset (2010: 53) notes, ‘women are typically excluded from conventional cotton growing because of its high costs and discrimination by extension agents and men.’ Organic cotton farming improves the position of women by valuing their participation and facilitating their direct access to locally available organic inputs.

Governing the transnational organic cotton network from Benin

© 2011 The Author(s) 347

Another important element in how the introduction of organic cotton production restructured the existing social network relates to the use of cow manure for soil fertility management. Culturally, cow breeding in Benin is the traditional province of the ‘Fulani’ people (Peulhs in French), a socio-cultural group spread over all agro-ecological areas in Benin and neighbouring countries (Burkina-Faso, Niger, Nigeria, Togo, Mali). Some Fulani groups live in permanent settlements, but others are trans-humant and move their livestock seasonally across the country and region in search of pastures. In general, the relationship between Fulani herders and farmers is tense because of the recurring conflicts that arise over the devastation of crops and plants by Fulani cattle. With the importance of cow manure in organic farming, organic farmers tried to develop good relationships with the Fulani to facilitate their access to the manure. In exchange for cow manure, organic farmers allow the Fulani herds to graze on their fallows and harvested farms and, in the event of any crop destruction, Fulani and organic farmers usually come to an amicable arrangement. The importance of cow manure opened ways for better cohabitation between organic farmers and Fulani groups.

Marketing networks

Benin exports about 95 per cent of its cotton for trade in the global cotton market. At the national level, a quota mechanism operates with the eight cotton companies. The AIC allocates a quota to each company based on its installed capacity and each ginner is informed where to buy his cotton and how much (Goreux and Macrae 2003). On this basis, each company positions the cotton fibre, mainly as fixed-price forward contracts via global cotton trading companies. The major cotton-trading companies operating in Benin include (SONAPRA, personal communication): Louis Dreyfus Group International Cotton NV (based in Antwerp), Compagnie Cotonnière SA (COPACO) (Paris), Paul Reinhart AG (Winterthur), Société Cotonnière de Distribution (CDI) (Lausanne), and Dunavant Enterprises Inc. (Geneva). In general, Benin’s cotton fibre, like most African cotton, ends up in Southeast Asia, Europe or Brazil. The marketing process is very different in the organic cotton chain.

In fact, since the beginning of the organic cotton initiative in Benin, trading of the fibre has been one the major bottlenecks (van Dok 2005). For a long time, the sector relied on the Dutch textile consortium TCW to market its organic cotton fibre. TCW formed institutional ties with the organic cotton initiative and agreed to liaise between the production and marketing sectors and to set up a cotton processing chain for the manufacture of baby clothes and hospital linen. For this purpose, the firm claimed to need between 4000 and 5000 tonnes of organic cotton. However, because COTEB, the national (Benin) company contracted for spinning and weaving services, faced a series of bureaucratic, technical and financial crises, the processing project never really got off the ground. On the marketing side of the operation, TCW bought 20 tonnes of organic cotton fibre in the year 1999/2000. Between 2001 and 2004, the total production (almost 200 tons) was stored because there was no buyer. Then, in 2005, Lindalu Afrique-Timmermans bought the entire stock for export and processing

Laurent C. Glin, Arthur P. J. Mol, Peter Oosterveer and Simplice D. Vodouhê

348 © 2011 The Author(s)

in Turkey (van Dok 2005). In 2005, TCW collapsed and no other long-term trading agreement was established. This coincided with the withdrawal of support from SDA. Thus, networks of actors were set up at national and international levels to create synergies and facilitate the expansion of the organic cotton market. In 2005, OBEPAB linked up with the French investor BIOCOTON and several local companies to establish a joint-venture trading company, named Organic Benin. This was to facilitate processing, exporting and liaising with buyers. Successful trials took place from 2005 to 2007 involving local companies such as the spinner CBT, the weaver COTEB, and the local design and production company GIETEX. Unfortunately, because of misunderstandings and distrust between the partners, Organic Benin collapsed in 2008. To deal with marketing issues OBEPAB now relies largely on transnational networks of NGOs, and these play an important brokering role in the transnational organic cotton network. Mato (1995) proposes that links between local and global dynamics should be defined in terms of what he calls ‘complexes of transnational brokering’, emphasizing the role of outside forces on the actors in organic networks. Transnational brokers are those whose interactions with other relevant actors fuel or carry the connections between global and local-level dynamics in the context of the global economy. Thus, they act to stimulate interactive, complementary and coupling effects with actors at lower as well as higher levels along the network (Coe et al. 2008). The concept is of great importance in helping one to appreciate better the role of transnational networks and NGOs in the development and maintenance of the organic cotton-marketing network from Benin. The trans-national actors playing a significant role in the organic cotton-marketing network in Benin include Agro Eco, PAN (UK, Germany, Asia, International), Solidaridad and Organic Exchange. Through their aim to strengthen the international organic movement and discourse, these transnational networks and NGOs are ‘bound together by shared values, a common discourse, and dense exchanges of information and services’ (Keck and Sikkink 1998: 2; see also Mol 2006). They are the main catalyst for marketing opportunities for organic cotton fibre at the international level. Over time, these transnational NGOs trigger a cumulative process through which international conferences and events (like the Biofach annual sessions and the Organic Exchange global and regional meetings) serve as important locations in which to enact linkages between organic cotton promoters and businesses and to renew the overall ‘organic covenant’. International organic events are instrumental in (re)building trust among organic product suppliers, retailers and consumers. The following statement from a retailer attending the 2008 Organic Exchange Global Meeting in Porto (Portugal) is quite expressive:

I’m really enthusiastic to attend such a meeting. It brought me into the actual organic world. Dealing with products coming from thousands of miles far away, even certified; when you have an opportunity like this one to meet and interact with those ‘hands’ behind those products, you discover the actual meaning of things. You are more trustful.

(Personal communication, 14 October 2008)

Governing the transnational organic cotton network from Benin

© 2011 The Author(s) 349

Every year, the above-mentioned transnational NGO networks support OBEPAB and representatives from farmers’ organizations to attend international events in the organic cotton sector. These transnational networks either arrange or otherwise facilitate almost all the market opportunities for organic cotton fibre. These NGO networks successfully broker Benin producers with international organic buyers and are trusted. Thus, they act as intermediaries, a kind of trust carrier, between OBEPAB/organic farmers in Benin and buyers in the organic cotton market globally. Because of the intermediation of these transnational NGO networks, OBEPAB is currently engaging commercial partnerships with Both ENDS and PK textiles for the trading of the organic cotton fibre. These transnational NGO networks are more crucial to the construction, maintenance and transformation of the transnational organic cotton network from Benin than one might expect. Hence, they are crucial governing actors in the organic cotton commodity chain. Table 3 summarizes some of the specific interventions these transnational networks and NGOs have undertaken in the organic cotton sector in Benin.

Conclusion

Initiated by intergovernmental sustainable development cooperation, a transnational organic cotton network evolved into a hybrid structure, combining private economic actors and domestic and international NGOs. To understand the emergence, coordin-ation and governance of this Benin-based transnational organic cotton network, we proposed widening the concept of GVCs beyond economics to include national and transnational governmental agencies and NGO networks; we also stressed the impor-tance of environmental rationalities. National and international NGO networks opened up spaces for value sharing and information exchange and played a brokering role in linking local producers to the global organic cotton market in Europe and vice versa. International conferences and events provided important occasions for establishing linkages between organic cotton promoters and businesses, and they strengthened the organic movement. Trust was a critical factor in recruiting farmers and ensuring their continued participation in the organic cotton production system and in securing the organic profile for European customers. Farmers’ organizations as well as national and international environmental NGOs are instrumental in mediating and (re)building social networks among organic farmers and with the other actors in the supply chain. Political and economic rationalities are insufficient to understand and explain the dynamics of transnational organic cotton networks, as are the analytical frameworks that rely solely on them. This substantiates Murdoch’s (2000) argument in favour of including external (trans)national NGOs in GVC analysis. In the transnational organic cotton commodity network, it is a mistake to regard non-economic actors and rationalities as external elements, for they form an integral part of the value chain and structure and govern the commodity network. Organic commodity or value chains are not only about economics, as the dominant GVC perspectives seem to suggest; they are also about environmental politics and hence actors and interests other than economic ones are able to claim space in organizing

Laurent C. Glin, Arthur P. J. Mol, Peter Oosterveer and Simplice D. Vodouhê

350 © 2011 The Author(s)

Table 3: Specific interventions by transnational networks and NGOs in the organic cotton chain from Benin

Transnational actors Specific interventions

Agro Eco • Raises awareness of sustainability in textiles and clothing in the textile industry and among traders and general public in the Netherlands

• Set up a Dutch organic textile platform, along with Goede Waar & Co. (‘Good Stuff & Co.’, formerly the Alternative Consumers’ Union AKB) and the Foundation Nature & Environment (SNM)

• Acts as an agent for cotton marketing • Manages technological development in pest and soil fertility • Elaborates communication support (posters)

PAN (UK, Germany, international)

• Raises awareness about pesticides and their related risks • Makes posters • Co-edits books and papers • Organizes financial support for documentation on incidents and

fatalities associated with pesticides • Finances attendance at international events • Organizes subsidies

Solidaridad • Financially supports capacity building in farmers’ organizations • Organizes cotton marketing • Finances attendance at international events

Textile Exchange (formerly, Organic Exchange)

• Finances capacity building in farmers’ organizations • Acts as an agent in cotton marketing • Organizes and finances attendance at international events • Supplies posters

Helvetas • Co-promotes a new organic cotton project (‘Projet Alafia’) in the bordering areas of Pendjari biosphere reserve (northwest Benin)

• Supports capacity building in farmers’ organizations • Supports internal control system (ICS) setting and certification • Acts as an agent in cotton marketing • Shares information

GTZ • Co-promotes the new organic cotton project, ‘Projet Alafia’ • Co-edits technical and economic references on organic cotton

IFOAM • Shares information • Edits books and papers

Governing the transnational organic cotton network from Benin

© 2011 The Author(s) 351

and governing the value chain. This is not to say that the emphasis on the economic factor in the GVC approaches that World System theorists like Friedmann, Gereffi et al., Gibbon and Ponte, and others developed is wrong. In the majority of the value chains, it might well still stand firmly, but in the case of organic cotton from Benin, one can no longer consider non-economic actors and interests as external to the value chain. They are integral to value chain governance. Hence, following empirical research on organics (see also Raynolds 2004), conventional GVC theory should make conceptual space for a broader notion of governance, much as Gereffi et al. (2005) did earlier.

We can put forward three potential explanations for why conventional commodity chain approaches cannot adequately address our Benin-based organic cotton chain, though each has different consequences for adapting the GVC approach. First, with the emerging centrality of sustainability since 1992 other, non-economic, considerations are becoming increasingly relevant in structuring commodity chains. Non-economic actors, in both civil society and government, play hugely important roles in articulating these non-economic rationalities, which can be ecological, social or ethical. If this is the case, the consequences are not directly evident. One reading could be that, as sustainability becomes more and more relevant, the conventional (political economy) commodity chain approach will lose its value for many agro-food chain analyses. At the same time, scholars working on ecological modernization have shown that, in organizing commodity chains and networks, economic actors can and often do incorporate wider sets of criteria (see Mol et al. 2009).

Second, and partly following this ecological modernization argument, it could be that the rather young character of the organic cotton chain, as well as the centrality of sustainability claims, means that non-economic interests and criteria have not yet been integrated into the economic heart of the commodity network. One can anticipate that a further institutionalization of organic cotton production, and an interest in sus-tainability extending to the mainstream economy, may render conventional commodity chain analyses more valuable in the future than they are at the moment. Within, say, ten years, the role of economic actors in the organization and governance of transnational organic commodity chains will again be dominant (though not exclusive).

The third explanation would argue that the nature of organic production and marketing is fundamentally different from conventional agro-food production and marketing. Hence, this specificity causes different network structures in which non-economic actors dominate the coordination and governance of the chain. If that is indeed the case, non-economic commodity network coordination is here to stay in transnational organic chains.

This opens up a new research agenda on transnational organic commodity net-works. Global organic supply chains clearly display the importance of environmental dimensions, complementing economic and social ones. The values of the organic movement motivate many actors to take great efforts in making this initiative successful, beyond what short-term private interest would dictate. By comparing different organic product chains with one another and by comparing these with more modest environmentally friendly or fair trade product chains, we could unravel which of the three explanations given above holds.

Laurent C. Glin, Arthur P. J. Mol, Peter Oosterveer and Simplice D. Vodouhê

352 © 2011 The Author(s)

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Netherlands Fellowship Programmes, and the International Foundation of Science, Stockholm, Sweden, through a grant to Laurent C. Glin (Grant No. S/4800-1). We thank Dieu Donné Binonwa, SandaOuassou and Olivier Tonato for their field assistance. We are also very grateful to anonymous peer reviewers for their valuable comments.

References

Bair, J. (2009) ‘Global commodity chains: genealogy and review’, in J. Bair (ed.) Frontiers of commodity chains research, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1–34.

Barrett, H. R., A. W. Browne and B. W. Ilbery (2004) ‘From farm to supermarket: the trade in fresh horticultural produce from sub-Saharan Africa to the United Kingdom’, in A. Hughes and S. Reimer (eds) Geographies of commodity chains, London: Routledge, 19–38.

Bartley, T. (2003) ‘Certifying forests and factories: states, social movements, and the rise of private regulation in the apparel and forest products fields’, Politics & Society, 31 (3), 433–64.

Bassett, T. (2010) ‘Slim pickings: fairtrade cotton in West Africa’, Geoforum, 41 (1), 44–55. Bernstein, H. and L. Campling (2006) ‘Review essay: commodity studies and commodity

fetishism I: trading down’, Journal of Agrarian Change, 6 (2), 239–64. Busch, L. and A. Juska (1997) ‘Beyond political economy: actor-networks and the globalisation

of agriculture’, Reviews of International Political Economy, 4 (4), 688–708. Challies, E. R. T. (2008) ‘Commodity chains, rural development and the global agri-food

system’, Geography Compass, 2 (2), 375–94. Coe, N. M., P. Dicken and M. Hess (2008) ‘Global production networks: realizing the

potential’, Journal of Economic Geography, 8 (3), 271–95. Crewe, L. (2004) ‘Unravelling fashion’s commodity chains’, in A. Hughes and S. Reimer (eds)

Geographies of commodity chains, London: Routledge, 195–214. Dicken, P., P. F. Kelly, K. Olds and H. W.-C. Yeung (2001) ‘Chains and networks, territories

and scales: towards a relational framework for analysing the global economy’, Global Networks, 1 (2), 89–112.

Dowd, B. (2008) ‘Organic cotton in sub-Saharan Africa: a new development paradigm?’, in W. Moseley and L. Gray (eds) Hanging by a thread: cotton, globalization and poverty in Africa, Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 252–71.

Freidberg, S. E. (2004) ‘The ethical complex of corporate food power’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 22 (4), 513–31.

Friedmann, H. (1993) ‘The political economy of food: a global crisis’, New Left Review, 197, 29–57.

Gereffi, G. (1994) ‘Capitalism, development and global commodity chains’, in L. Sklair (ed.) Capitalism and development, London: Routledge, 211–31.

Gereffi, G., J. Humphrey and T. J. Sturgeon (2005) ‘The governance of global value chains’, Review of International Political Economy, 12 (1), 78–104.

Gergely, N. (2009) The cotton sector of Benin, Washington: World Bank. Gibbon, P. and S. Ponte (2005) Trading down: Africa, value chains and the global economy,

Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Glin, L. C., J. Kuiseu, A. Thiam, D. S. Vodouhê, B. Dinham and S. Ferrigno (2006) Living with

poison: problems of endosulfan in West African cotton growing systems, Pesticides Action Network UK.

Goreux, L. and J. Macrae (2003) Reforming the cotton sector in sub-Saharan Africa, Washington, DC: World Bank.

Hughes, A. (2006) ‘Geographies of exchange and circulation: transnational trade and governance’, Progress in Human Geography, 30 (5), 635–43.

Governing the transnational organic cotton network from Benin

© 2011 The Author(s) 353

Keck, M. E. and K. Sikkink (1998) Activists beyond borders: advocacy networks in international politics, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Kern, K. (2004) ‘Global governance through transnational network organisations: the scope and limitations of civil society self-organisation’, Discussion Paper SP IV 2004–102, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.

Klooster, D. (2005) ‘Environmental certification of forests: the evolution of environmental governance in a commodity network’, Journal of Rural Studies, 21 (4), 403–17.

Kutting, G. (2004) Globalization and the environment: greening global political economy, Albany: State University of New York Press.

Mato, D. (1995) ‘Complexes of brokering and global–local connections: considerations based on cases in Latin America’, paper presented at the annual meeting of the Latin America Studies Association, Washington, DC.

Mol, A. P. J. (2006) ‘Environmental governance in the information age: the emergence of informational governance’, Environment and Planning C, 24 (4), 497–514.

Mol, A. P. J. (2010) ‘Environmental authorities and biofuel controversies’, Environmental Politics 19 (1), 61–79.

Mol, A. P. J. and H. Bulkeley (2002) ‘Food risks and the environment: changing perspectives in a changing social order’, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 4 (3), 185–95.

Mol, A. P. J., G. Spaargaren and D. A. Sonnenfeld (2009) The ecological modernization reader: environmental reform in theory and practice, London: Routledge.

Murdoch, J. (2000) ‘Network: a new paradigm of rural development?’, Journal of Rural Studies, 16 (4), 407–19.

Myers, D. (1999) ‘Organic cotton: a more sustainable approach’, in D. Myers and S. Stolton (eds) Organic cotton: from field to final product, London: Intermediate Technology Publications, 21–35.

NIPS (2004) International sustainable chain management lessons from the Netherlands, Benin, Bhutan and Costa Rica, Amsterdam: Royal Tropical Institute (KIT) Publishers.

Oosterveer, P. (2006) Global governance of food production and consumption: issues and challenges, London: Edward Elgar.

Pretty, J. and R. Hine (2001) Reducing food poverty with sustainable agriculture: a summary of new evidence, final report from the ‘SAFE-World’ (The Potential of Sustainable Agriculture to Feed the World) research project, University of Essex.

Raynolds, L. T. (2000) ‘Re-embedding global agriculture: the international organic and fair trade movements’, Agriculture and Human Values, 17 (3), 297–309.

Raynolds, L. T. (2004) ‘The globalization of organic agro-food networks’, World Development, 32 (5), 725–43.

Sinzogan, A. (2006) ‘Facilitating learning toward sustainable cotton pest management in Benin: the interactive design of research for development’, Ph.D. dissertation, Wageningen University.

Sturgeon, T. (2002) ‘Modular production networks: a new American model of industrial organization’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 11 (3), 451–96.

Ton, P. (2002) Organic cotton production in sub-Saharan Africa, Pesticides, Policy and Livelihoods Series, PAN UK: London.

Ton, P. (2007) Organic cotton: an opportunity for trade, Technical Paper, International Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO, Palais des Nations, 1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland.

Tovignan, D. S. (2005) ‘Gender perspectives in the adoption of organic cotton in Benin: a farm household modelling approach’, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Giessen, Germany.

Treib, O., H. Bähr and G. Falkner (2007) ‘Modes of governance: towards a conceptual clarification’, Journal of European Public Policy, 14 (1), 1–20.

UN (United Nations) (1998) ‘Agreement concerning sustainable development between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Benin’, United Nations Treaty Series, No. 34457, 263–67.

Laurent C. Glin, Arthur P. J. Mol, Peter Oosterveer and Simplice D. Vodouhê

354 © 2011 The Author(s)

van Dok, Y. (2005) Developing an integrated fair trade textile chain in Benin, consultancy report, Solidaridad.

van Elzakker, B. (1999) ‘Organic cotton production’, in D. Myers and S. Stolton (eds) Organic cotton: from field to final product, London: Intermediate Technology Publications, 21–35.

Verhagen, H., N. Dorji, G. Biaou and L. Abarca (2003) Building partnerships for sustainable development: lessons from the Netherlands, Benin, Buthan and Costa Rica, Amsterdam: Royal Tropical Institute (KIT) Publishers, Bulletin 354.

Vodouhê, D. S., S. Tovignan and B. Dinham (2001) ‘Cotton pesticides cause more deaths in Benin’, Pesticides News, 52 (June), 12–14.

Ward, N. and R. Almas (1997) ‘Explaining change in the international agro-food system’, Review of International Political Economy, 4 (4), 611–29.